Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Considering the massive loss of life caused by Britannia its obvious which side is good. Lelouch biggest problem is that the man is a dick, and somewhat nuts.

Chuck is a crazed lunatic who kills millions in hid dream of renacting the plot from "Children's End"

Also no Britannia is not shown as sympathetic in the least. At no point in time does Cornelia seem to regret her actions, nor does any of the other Britannians. Gino states that he wishes that Britannia was the way it used to be under Charles.

Compare that with say Fullmetal Alchemist where characters breakdown, and half the scenes are of the common soldier being disgusted with their own actions.

I don't really see what the big deal is here. Soldiers who delight in killing, and soldiers who are disgusted, are equally sympathetic (or unsympathetic, as the case may be) to me: after all, they're all just grunts, and all just human. The attitudes and feelings of such obviously un-self-aware characters really do nothing in terms of making me like or dislike a faction.

It's really the goals and leadership which matter, and in that regard I find Charles more sympathetic than the Fuhrer and even maybe Mustang. I really have no problem with the kind of people Cornelia, Schniezel, Euphemia, Darlton, Guilford, Jeremiah, Viletta (eh, well I suppose perhaps not the latter two), etc. were either. Furthermore, I quite like Suzaku, so all in all I have to say I did find Britannia sympathetic, the rebels to a degree less so, given the fewer number of notable leaders (Toudou, Ougi, Deithard?) and a lessened impression of their competence what with Lelouch being the focus. In the end I really would say that Code Geass didn't feature good or evil, and had instead essentially universal ignorance and lack of competence (no side ever actually looked good consistently, really), so that people's support for either side, or moreover simultaneous support for both even, is entirely justified.

Also, your characterization of Lelouch is rather shallow. :P I remember we used to have a bit of a rapport regarding Lelouch redeeming himself via Zero Requiem, so this is a bit disappointing.

I don't really see what the big deal is here. Soldiers who delight in killing, and soldiers who are disgusted, are equally sympathetic (or unsympathetic, as the case may be) to me: after all, they're all just grunts, and all just human. The attitudes and feelings of such obviously un-self-aware characters really do nothing in terms of making me like or dislike a faction.

It's really the goals and leadership which matter, and in that regard I find Charles more sympathetic than the Fuhrer and even maybe Mustang.

Say what? Mustang wanted to become Fuhrer in order to put an end to the corruption and tyranny within the military. How was Charles any better than that?

Quote:

I really have no problem with the kind of people Cornelia, Schniezel, Euphemia, Darlton, Guilford, Jeremiah, Viletta (eh, well I suppose perhaps not the latter two), etc. were either.

The former 3 were in leadership positions, so Cornelia, for instance, was quite responsible for her actions, which she had no problems carrying out, by the way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charred Knight

Did Lelouch redeem himself at the end?

Somewhat, but he will never be a hero, but then again that's what makes him a unique character. Even when his trying to be heroic his doing it wrong.

True, but he still had a greater sense of honor than many other characters in the show. (Not that you're necessarily saying otherwise.)

I really want to know how Charles whose death toll is probably about 50 million is more sympathetic than a man who wants to become Fuhrer to protect everyone, end corruption, and bring Amestris to a new golden age.

Unless your talking exclusively about the anime and took the whole Miniskirt thing seriously.

I know. For reasons we've both went over, perhaps the biggest wallbanger of the series.

I actually view it as one of the smallest or, perhaps a better description, one with relatively little consequence. Any issues with it, outside of complaints about escaping karmic retribution, which for that matter is hardly a constant in real life, could be resolved considering there are a number of shared acquaintances, past and present, involved. It's not that difficult to imagine that, however many months after the end of the series proper, enough information and possibly a couple of introductions were exchanged in order to arrange such a meeting. Not exactly great writing, but not outside of the realm of possibility either.

Say what? Mustang wanted to become Fuhrer in order to put an end to the corruption and tyranny within the military. How was Charles any better than that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charred Knight

I really want to know how Charles whose death toll is probably about 50 million is more sympathetic than a man who wants to become Fuhrer to protect everyone, end corruption, and bring Amestris to a new golden age.

Unless your talking exclusively about the anime and took the whole Miniskirt thing seriously.

Let's keep in mind we're talking about a fictional 50 million here. Basically, Charles was sympathetic to me because his perspectives emerged from an understandably difficult history, he was determined and consistent in pursuing his goal, and had perspective of himself and was therefore competent. Charles never let himself be distracted with meaningless idealizations and instead focused on reality and what was practically efficient and achievable. Mustang, meanwhile, is a bit of a preachy bitch. The bullshit moral posturing he recently pulled with his vengeful fury over Hughes death but subsequent acquiescence that 'no, vengeance is wrong' just lacks any real feeling, and it is this same triteness which describes Mustang's supposed motive for taking over the military because 'Oh, I feel so terrible for killing people 7 (was it 7?) years ago'. What's so terrible and corrupt about the Amestris government?--aside from Wrath secretly being a homunculus and one bad war in the past decade?

Quote:

The former 3 were in leadership positions, so Cornelia, for instance, was quite responsible for her actions, which she had no problems carrying out, by the way.

Of course they were responsible for their actions. I simply have no problem with them. They all acted in an entirely reasonable manners (okay, maybe not Schniezel, but again at least he was genuine) given their respective backgrounds, positions, and motivations. They were generally honourable and respectable people who even had the clarity to occasionally look past a national prejudice; that's better than the grunts, and honestly good enough.

Quote:

True, but he still had a greater sense of honor than many other characters in the show. (Not that you're necessarily saying otherwise.)

Well, what I'd say really redeemed Lelouch was the fact that he got over his self-limiting perception that the world was his enemy to sacrifice himself for the better of it. I'm not really sure where you're getting this 'honour' thing at all.

I kept on writing a bunch of different type of posts, but the same question just kept on coming back to me.

What?

I mean that's all I can say

What?

I mean your answer makes no sense

You mention that the millions Charles would have killed are fictional than you spout nonsense about how Charles is a realist when you just said that Realism didn't matter. because if realism did matter than the 50 million people he just killed would matter.

Than the crap about the Amestrian Government which was incredibly depraved.

You can't have it both ways

You can't condemn characters for being idealistic while excusing characters for their actions because "it wasn't real".

You can't condemn characters for being idealistic while excusing characters for their actions because "it wasn't real".

I think Sol wasn't "excusing" their actions per se, he was just mentioning it because the people aren't real :|

The thing is, the amount of people a character kills isn't a factor in them being good or bad imo. I mean, how many people did Light Yagami kill, together with Misa? Obviously theres no concrete number but obviously quite a few. The point is that I and probably 70-80% of Death Note's viewers were cheering him on as he passed judgement on criminals. If they were real, maybe people would think differently. I could be wrong, but thats just my two cents.

I voted very good. I see my opinion isn't most popular here.
I think it deserves 8+ but not 9. Problems with motivation mostly.
Very entertaining to watch, but has some flaws.
Also I find it hilarious how Lelouch is together smart and stupid, not saying it was bad, rather fun.

I kept on writing a bunch of different type of posts, but the same question just kept on coming back to me.

What?

I mean that's all I can say

What?

I mean your answer makes no sense

You mention that the millions Charles would have killed are fictional than you spout nonsense about how Charles is a realist when you just said that Realism didn't matter. because if realism did matter than the 50 million people he just killed would matter.

I should have been more clear. The 50 million people being fictional was for your benefit. I honestly don't see the sense in condemning a fictional character because of their atrocities. They can't help it, after all: they just do what the author wants them to do.

Charles' ideology/actions/motivations are unique, believably developed by his backstory, and actually interesting (his realist perceptions being part of what make them so). That's what matters to me in a work of fiction.

Quote:

Than the crap about the Amestrian Government which was incredibly depraved.

You can't have it both ways

You can't condemn characters for being idealistic while excusing characters for their actions because "it wasn't real".

I'm not condemning Roy for being idealistic, I'm condemning him for being a boring character (well okay, his flame alchemy is pretty badass) whose emotional core just isn't compelling or accessible. Honestly, any character who for one lacks enough perspective to go into 'I'll hurt even my friends for revenge' mode, only to subsequently change his mind due to their self-righteous preaching, is just plain weak. And going back to my first point again, I can hardly believe you can take some fictional dream of a 'golden Amestris' (this is exactly the bullshit politics is made of, btw) seriously enough to actually find it moving.

Wait... are we talking about sympathetic or likeable here?
I think it's the latter, but I only really got that after reading through this for the second time. xD
Oh well, now it makes sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sol Falling

I should have been more clear. The 50 million people being fictional was for your benefit. I honestly don't see the sense in condemning a fictional character because of their atrocities. They can't help it, after all: they just do what the author wants them to do.

Charles' ideology/actions/motivations are unique, believably developed by his backstory, and actually interesting (his realist perceptions being part of what make them so). That's what matters to me in a work of fiction.

*totally signs that*
And this is the reason why I always blink when Charles is compared to Hitler or Gino is said to be the same as one of his most loyal hench men. It really doesn't get the point across to me because it feels like comparing apples to pizza. Thus, I know what people are trying to tell me, but I also know that they are failing to do so.

__________________

"I think of the disturbance in Area 11 as a chess puzzle, set forth by Lelouch." - Clovis la Britannia

Wait... are we talking about sympathetic or likeable here?
I think it's the latter, but I only really got that after reading through this for the second time. xD
Oh well, now it makes sense.

*totally signs that*
And this is the reason why I always blink when Charles is compared to Hitler or Gino is said to be the same as one of his most loyal hench men. It really doesn't get the point across to me because it feels like comparing apples to pizza. Thus, I know what people are trying to tell me, but I also know that they are failing to do so.

yes its not Gino most definitely that Complete tool with a Geass, Bismarck

well so was Bismarck and he knew more about Geass, (presumably what happened to Marianne) and had his own geass

Bismark opposed Lelouch because of Geass and the death of Charles and Marianne. It was a conflict of ideals for the future. Gino opposed Lelouch because he liked racism more than equality.

Bismark did not oppose Schneizel, barely even cared much for the whole coup thing. Gino opposed because he did not agree with Schneizel's desire for a coup... and yet sides with the man a few episodes later.

Bismark stated that he dislikes wars and sought peace for humanity, all be it in a backwards and very NERV way. Gino sought justifications to purge people and fight "worthy opponents".

Gino didn't 'like' racism, he just preferred stability and what was familiar. Just take him as some standard rich kid character, the equivalent of which may be found in many other animes, and the only sin he bears is his context (a world of revolution and colonial oppression. You could hardly condemn all the people of renaissance Europe to hell, though, could you?).

Now I'm not really a fan of Gino. I'd agree that he is trash in terms of what the authors actually achieved through him. However, I maintain that it's pointless to hate and condemn fictional characters due to their actions. Hate them for their narrative and emotional core instead, like Makoto from School Days. :P (Gino hardly has any, I'm almost amazed he can stir up this much of a reaction.)

Bismark opposed Lelouch because of Geass and the death of Charles and Marianne. It was a conflict of ideals for the future. Gino opposed Lelouch because he liked racism more than equality.

Bismark did not oppose Schneizel, barely even cared much for the whole coup thing. Gino opposed because he did not agree with Schneizel's desire for a coup... and yet sides with the man a few episodes later.

Bismark stated that he dislikes wars and sought peace for humanity, all be it in a backwards and very NERV way. Gino sought justifications to purge people and fight "worthy opponents".

When even Kaoshin won't defend this character, you know he's garbage.

In defense of Gino he was less a character and more an extra gun.

Lelouch has Suzaku, and Jeremiah? Well Kallen matches Suzaku perfectly, and even though Anya and Gino have never accomplished anything of worth (did they even win a battle? They can pick up the slack a little bit.

Though I will point out that Gino's comments are so idiotic that their funny.

Also Britannia has a hell of a lot more in common with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, then renaissance Europe.